Towards a Larger Ecumenism?

The County Ecumenical Officer writes on the Unity of the Church and the Unity of Humankind

9-Minute Read

Every so often, one reads an article that quietly rearranges one’s thinking. That was my experience when I came across J. Paul Rajashekar’s essay ‘Dialogue with People of Other Faiths and Ecumenical Theology’ (1984). As a Lutheran Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology, he argues that ecumenical theology should broaden its horizons to engage seriously with interreligious dialogue and the wider human community. 

His essay prompted me to ask whether the ecumenical movement, while rightly devoted to the unity of Christians, might also recover something of its wider vocation; that is, a concern not only for the unity of the Church but for the unity of humankind.

As a Catholic engaged in ecumenical work, I find that question challenging but deeply attractive. For more than a century, the modern ecumenical movement has sought to heal the divisions between Christians. Through theological dialogue, shared prayer and practical cooperation, churches that once regarded one another with suspicion have (largely) learned to recognise one another as partners in a common pilgrimage towards the visible unity for which Christ prayed. That task remains unfinished, and it remains indispensable.

However, the social and religious landscape around us has changed profoundly. Most Christians today encounter not only fellow believers from different traditions but also neighbours who are Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, members of other faiths, and of none. Religious diversity is no longer something encountered abroad or studied in textbooks. It is part of everyday life, often experienced as a source of enrichment but, as contemporary debates around migration illustrate, also viewed by some as a challenge to cultural identity and social cohesion.

Rather than seeing this as peripheral to ecumenism, perhaps we should ask whether it has something important to teach us about ecumenism itself. Such a suggestion is entirely consistent with the direction taken by both the Roman Catholic Church and the wider ecumenical movement.

The Second Vatican Council’s declaration Nostra Aetate (In Our Time) represented a watershed in Catholic engagement with other religions. It affirmed that the Church “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in other faith traditions and encouraged dialogue and collaboration based on mutual respect and the pursuit of truth. At the same time, it reaffirmed the Church’s proclamation of Christ as the fullness of divine revelation. Dialogue, in this understanding, is not relativism but a confident expression of Christian faith. 

Likewise, the World Council of Churches has long recognised dialogue with people of other faiths as an important dimension of Christian witness in a religiously plural world. Neither Vatican II nor the WCC regards engagement with other religions as a surrender of Christian conviction. Rather, both understand respectful encounter as an opportunity for deeper understanding, faithful witness and cooperation in addressing the challenges facing humanity.

Against that background, I have found myself asking whether our understanding of ecumenism might sometimes be too narrow? A further motivation for that question comes from an initiative promoted through the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Faith and Society: the Faith Covenant. 

The Covenant is a joint commitment between faith communities and local authorities, designed to foster trust, mutual respect, and practical collaboration for the common good. It does not ask religious communities to abandon their distinctive identities but instead recognises that they can work together while remaining faithful to their own traditions and what they each believe. Since its first signing by Birmingham City Council in December 2014, the Covenant has been adopted by more than twenty public authorities across the United Kingdom, including Cornwall, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire, and Dundee. 

As far as I have been able to ascertain, Norfolk does not currently have such a covenant. Whether one should be developed is a matter for another day and, of course, one that would naturally involve the leadership of interfaith organisations already active within our county. My interest here is not to advocate for such an arrangement but to reflect on the questions it raises; namely, if our civic institutions increasingly recognise the value of cooperation across faith boundaries, might Christians also benefit from thinking more expansively about the scope of ecumenism?

The word oikoumene (from which ecumenical is derived) originally meant the whole inhabited world. Over time, Christians have rightly associated it with the search for visible unity among the churches. But perhaps we have allowed the term to become more confined than its origins suggest. Afterall, a concern for the unity of the Church and a concern for the unity of humankind are not competing projects. At their deepest, they are the same project, approached from different directions.

This broader perspective does not diminish the importance of Christian unity. On the contrary, it places that unity within God’s wider reconciling purpose for creation. A divided Church inevitably weakens its witness to a fractured world. But a Church pursuing unity while engaging generously and attentively with those beyond its own boundaries offers a more compelling sign of the Kingdom of God.

Dialogue with people of other faiths need not require Christians to dilute or compromise their convictions. Authentic dialogue often has the opposite effect. Explaining one's beliefs to those who do not share them forces a clarity that internal conversation rarely demands. Listening with genuine attention to a different account of human life and meaning can expose assumptions that had gone unexamined, deepen appreciation of one's own tradition, and foster the kind of intellectual humility that is quite different from theological uncertainty. The question the other faith poses to us is not a threat. It is, more often than not, an invitation to understand more honestly what we actually believe and why.

There is also a profound moral dimension. We inhabit a society marked by political polarisation, social fragmentation and a growing tendency to caricature those with whom we disagree. In such an environment, the simple act of listening becomes a form of witness. It embodies a confidence that truth does not fear scrutiny and that charity remains one of the highest expressions of Christian discipleship, whatever form the encounter takes.

Indeed, in many places across Norfolk one can observe churches working constructively not only with one another but also with neighbours from other faith traditions in addressing local needs, supporting vulnerable people and contributing to civic life. Such cooperation does not erase theological differences, nor should it. Rather, it demonstrates that mutual respect and practical collaboration can flourish without requiring participants to abandon their deepest convictions. These experiences suggest that engagement beyond the boundaries of the Church may, in fact, reinforce rather than weaken the ecumenical instinct.

This is why Rajashekar’s essay resonates so much with me. He argued that ecumenical theology should move towards “a total vision” embracing both the unity of the Church and the unity of humankind. Far from replacing the traditional ecumenical agenda, such a vision enlarges it. It invites Christians to see their own reconciliation not as an end in itself but as part of God’s reconciling work in the whole world.

None of this should be understood as obscuring or relativising the distinctive claims of the Christian Gospel. Christians enter dialogue not because all religions are the same, but because confidence in Christ enables rather than inhibits genuine encounter. Fidelity to the Gospel and openness to conversation are not opposing virtues but complementary expressions of Christian discipleship. 

The Church must continue its patient and indispensable pursuit of visible unity. Yet it can do so while engaging openly with those beyond its own boundaries, recognising that dialogue with people of other faiths may illuminate rather than diminish the Christian vocation.

The ecumenical movement has spent generations asking how Christians can become one. Clearly, that question remains essential. But the twenty-first century may be inviting us to ask another alongside it: how can a more visibly united Church contribute to the reconciliation of the whole human family? Those are not rival questions - the second does not replace the first - it enlarges it.

If that sounds ambitious, it may simply be because we have forgotten how large the original vision of oikoumene really was.

Key References and Further Reading

• Rajashekar, J.P. "Dialogue with People of Other Faiths and Ecumenical Theology," The Ecumenical Review — the essay that prompted this article.
• The Faith Covenant — All-Party Parliamentary Group on Faith and Society
• Nostra Aetate (1965) — the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.
• WCC Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies (1979) — the World Council of Churches' foundational document on interfaith encounter.

Concept and article by Dr. Ian Watson, whose lay views are his alone. He serves as County Ecumenical Officer with responsibilities to promote, support, and provide guidance on Christian Unity throughout Norfolk and Waveney. 

Image is a screenshot of the APPG Faith and Society home page
 
 

(Author: )

---